ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioners who are claiming to be the unauthorised occupants of the land bearing Sy. No. 17 of Kodipalya Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, which is a Gomal Land have preferred these Writ Petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to abstain from dispossessing the Petitioners from their respective properties as mentioned at paragraphs 4 to 7 vide Annexures-B and E to K which measures 27 acres 35 guntas and to direct Respondents not to evict them without due process of law as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant rules thereof. Further they have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to dispose of the applications filed by them for regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation in the said land as provided under the provisions of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant rules thereof urging various grounds. 2. The various facts and legal contentions need not be adverted to in this order in view of the admitted fact stated in the Writ Petitions that the land in question is a Gomal Land. Section 94(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 confers right upon the unauthorised occupants in respect of the Government Land other than the lands which are reserved by the Government as provided under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'Act, 1964') read with Rule 108(I) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short "Rules, 1966"). Rules 108(I) of the Rules, 1966 clearly contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, lands assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act, 1964 and lands described in revenue records as mentioned in the said section which in the opinion of the Government is required for public purpose, shall not be granted. The provisions of the said Rule clearly provides that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to lands set-apart for free pasturage under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will be governed by Rule 97. Rule 97 of the rules clearly provides that the Government Land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of each village at the rate of twelve hectares for every hundred heads of cattle. Rule 97 of the rules clearly provides that the Government Land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of each village at the rate of twelve hectares for every hundred heads of cattle. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 confers statutory duty upon the Deputy Commissioner to determine the extent of the land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. Proviso (i) of Rule 97(4) of the Rules provides that no such permission shall be necessary where the reduction below the prescribed limit is for the purpose of distribution of house sites to the siteless person and for grant of land to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for agricultural purposes who are ordinarily residents of such village. Further, in view of the said Rules, in respect of the land which is reserved for pasturage of the cattle under Section 71 of the Act read with Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 of the Rules Petitioners have no vested statutory right under Section 94(A) of the Act and the said right is subject to the conditions enumerated under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act read with Rule 97 of the Rules. The contentions urged by the Petitioners are that their applications in Form No. 50 are pending before the Committee for Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the land and as such the Petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question until their applications are disposed of following the procedure contemplated under Section 94(A) read with the Rules thereof and that eviction of the Petitioners from the Lands in question will entail serious civil consequences upon their rights. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1975 (1) SN. 231 & 1974 (1) KLJ 130. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1975 (1) SN. 231 & 1974 (1) KLJ 130. Further, he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in a public interest litigation in Writ Petition No. 37581 of 2000 wherein the Petitioners have been given liberty to submit representation to the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District and a direction has been issued to them to consider the representations, if they are submitted and contended that the first Respondent has formed house sites in the lands in question for distributing the same to the weaker sections of the Society and he has also produced one such Possession Certificate at Annexure-F and as such these are the fit cases for grant of the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioners. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the documents produced in these cases particularly Annexures-F and L. 4. The said documents clearly disclose the fact that the land in question is set apart for pasturage of the cattle of the village. Section 71 of the Act, read with Rule 97 do not clearly contemplate that such lands cannot be regularised in favour of unauthorised occupants in view of the provisions of Rule 108(I) of the Rules, 1966. Further, Section 94 of the Act clearly contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961 repealed by Act No. 32 of 1974 any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land which is not transferable by virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure, under the provisions of Sections 91, 98 and 99 may be summarily evicted by the Deputy Commissioner and any crop including trees raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after written notice, as the Deputy Commissioner may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture of summary removal. In view of the said provisions, Petitioners have no vested statutory right for their regularisation of unauthorised occupation for the reasons that Section 71 of the Act, read with Sub-section (3) of Section 94 and Rules 97 and 108(I) of the Rules clearly state that the Gomal Land shall not be the subject-matter of land for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation by the Petitioners. Further, the contention that the first Respondent has formed house sites in the lands in question for distribution to the weaker section of the society and as such the Petitioners are entitled for regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of the Land also cannot be accepted for the reason that the same is permissible under Rule 97, Sub-rule (4) Clauses 1 to 3 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed upon the judgments of this Court referred to supra have no application to the facts of this case. Further, Petitioners are unauthorised occupants in respect of the reserved Gomal Land are not entitled for any discretionary relief in the hands of this Court. The contentions urged by the Petitioners that their eviction from the lands in question would affect their statutory rights and it entitles serious civil consequences is also untenable in law as the Petitioners in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the law are in an unauthorised occupation of the land for which they are not entitled. Further, this Court in the case reported in S. Siddappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (1998) KAR 2757 interpreting Section 71 and Section 94(A) read with Rule 108(I) of the Rules in respect of the land which are set apart for pasturage of the village cattle has directed the Deputy Commissioners in the State to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to preserve and reserve all such lands for the purpose specified therein. In view of this judgment also, Petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs. 5. For the reasons stated supra, these Writ Petitions must fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. 6. In view of this judgment also, Petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs. 5. For the reasons stated supra, these Writ Petitions must fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. 6. The concerned Deputy Commissioner is directed to take necessary step to evict the Petitioners summarily as provided under Section 94 of the Act, 1964 forfeiting the crops and the building or other construction erected on the lands in question within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to the Registry of this Court.